Phase III Randomized Comparison of Gemcitabine Versus Gemcitabine Plus Capecitabine in Patients With Advanced Pancreatic Cancer

  1. Lookup NU author(s)
  2. Dr Deborah Stocken
Author(s)Cunningham D, Chau I, Stocken DD, Valle JW, Smith D, Steward W, Harper PG, Dunn J, Tudur-Smith C, West J, Falk S, Crellin A, Adab F, Thompson J, Leonard P, Ostrowski J, Eatock M, Scheithauer W, Herrmann R, Neoptolemos JP
Publication type Article
JournalJournal of Clinical Oncology
Year2009
Volume27
Issue33
Pages5513-5518
ISSN (print)0732-183X
ISSN (electronic)1527-7755
Full text for this publication is not currently held within this repository. Alternative links are provided below where available.
Purpose Both gemcitabine (GEM) and fluoropyrimidines are valuable treatment for advanced pancreatic cancer. This open-label study was designed to compare the overall survival (OS) of patients randomly assigned to GEM alone or GEM plus capecitabine (GEM-CAP). Patients and Methods Patients with previously untreated histologically or cytologically proven locally advanced or metastatic carcinoma of the pancreas with a performance status ≤ 2 were recruited. Patients were randomly assigned to GEM or GEM-CAP. The primary outcome measure was survival. Meta-analysis of published studies was also conducted. Results Between May 2002 and January 2005, 533 patients were randomly assigned to GEM (n = 266) and GEM-CAP (n = 267) arms. GEM-CAP significantly improved objective response rate (19.1% v 12.4%; P = .034) and progression-free survival (hazard ratio [HR], 0.78; 95% CI, 0.66 to 0.93; P = .004) and was associated with a trend toward improved OS (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.72 to 1.02; P = .08) compared with GEM alone. This trend for OS benefit for GEM-CAP was consistent across different prognostic subgroups according to baseline stratification factors (stage and performance status) and remained after adjusting for these stratification factors (P = .077). Moreover, the meta-analysis of two additional studies involving 935 patients showed a significant survival benefit in favor of GEM-CAP (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.75 to 0.98; P = .02) with no intertrial heterogeneity. Conclusion On the basis of our trial and the meta-analysis, GEM-CAP should be considered as one of the standard first-line options in locally advanced and metastatic pancreatic cancer.
PublisherAmerican Society of Clinical Oncology
URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2009.24.2446
DOI10.1200/JCO.2009.24.2446
Actions    Link to this publication